This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by ROSE, N. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

The Biology of Culpability:

Pathological Identity and Crime Control in a Biological Culture

Goldsmiths College, University of London, UK

This article considers the impact of the new biological criminology on control strategies. Biocriminology does not purport to have a general explanation for crime, but draws upon contemporary human genetics and neurobiology to account for what is represented as a growing social problem of violent and anti-social conduct. Jurisprudential notions of free will and responsibility are not being displaced by genetic essentialism in the courtroom, where the tendency is for an increased emphasis upon moral responsibility of all offenders for their actions. However, in other areas of the criminal justice system, we are seeing the emergence of new conceptions of the individual `genetically at risk' of offending, and the development of crime prevention strategies based upon a rationale of public health. This is not a new eugenics, but a control strategy that aims to identify, treat and control individuals predisposed to impulsive or aggressive conduct. The implications of the new biological criminology may be seen in the form of genetic discrimination, genetic screening in risk assessments and the use of quasi-consensual `treatment' for supposed biological tendencies, as conditions for a non-custodial sentence, loss of employment or denial of insurance or other benefits. The search for biological dispositions may also play a part in the increased use of preventive detention and other pre-emptive interventions for `the protection of the public' against those whose conduct seems to show wanton disregard for the moral constraints on the conduct of free individuals in a liberal society.

Key Words: biocriminology • eugenics • genetics • responsibility • risk

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. H. Rafter H. J. Eysenck in Fagin's kitchen: the return to biological theory in 20th-century criminology History of the Human Sciences, November 1, 2006; 19(4): 37 - 56. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. F. Aas 'The body does not lie': Identity, risk and trust in technoculture Crime Media Culture, August 1, 2006; 2(2): 143 - 158. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. D.N. Graham Software-sorted geographies Progress in Human Geography, October 1, 2005; 29(5): 562 - 580. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Graham and D. Wood Digitizing Surveillance: Categorization, Space, Inequality Critical Social Policy, May 1, 2003; 23(2): 227 - 248. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. Rose The Politics of Life Itself Theory Culture Society, December 1, 2001; 18(6): 1 - 30. [Abstract] [PDF]